Right, with an act of congress and the conversion of million and millions of forms, it is possible. Again, it is not likely. Not just logistically, but because such an operation would put millions of gun owners up in arms (so to speak).
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Universal Background Checks? Yes or No? Ideas?
- Thread starter rebel1022
- Start date
Right, with an act of congress and the conversion of million and millions of forms, it is possible. Again, it is not likely. Not just logistically, but because such an operation would put millions of gun owners up in arms (so to speak).
Sorry, i thought you were talking abut me because I mentioned 4473/NICS earlier. Also, the gun dealer is the sole keeper of the serial number of the firearm being purchased. That data is not sent to the FBI during the NICS check. Still possible to use that data in registration down the line though (see above).
Edit: as far as why the serial number is recorded on the 4473, I couldn't tell you. Maybe its for later registration of firearms, maybe so that the information can be used in court if a person lies on the 4473, maybe for the FFL's personal bound book record keeping, maybe for a lot of things.
Thanks for the response. I am somewhat disturbed at how many so-called pro 2A advocates are willing to compromise even further simply because the anti-gunners are making noise. Supporting or caving in to further restrictions that does absolutely nothing to solve what they are selling and only serves to make registration even more probable should be setting off alarms, not inviting appeasement. With each and every compromise, the goal to complete ban on guns becomes a closer reality. Perhaps not this decade, but that is the direction we are headed. The fact that the 4473 requires a serial number is quite telling, yet very few pay attention to why or do they care. Perhaps it is a generational gap, but I just don't understand why more people are not being more vocal against the anti-gunners. In my opinion, the only compromise that should be considered is one that takes us back to the Second Amendment, not vice versa. I am simply sick of hearing "well, we have to do something", and then see everyone nod in agreement and the anti-gunners win another round. Rant over.
The 4473 has the serial number so the ATF can verify the dealer records.
Each dealer keeps a 'bound book' with their inventory (can be software, it's just called that). When they receive firearms it has to go into their book (and is removed from the distributors).
When you buy from the dealer, the 4473 with that serial number is the proof that they sold that firearm to a real person and that a background check was done. Once that's done the dealer can take that firearm out of their book, and are no longer responsible for it.
Each dealer keeps a 'bound book' with their inventory (can be software, it's just called that). When they receive firearms it has to go into their book (and is removed from the distributors).
When you buy from the dealer, the 4473 with that serial number is the proof that they sold that firearm to a real person and that a background check was done. Once that's done the dealer can take that firearm out of their book, and are no longer responsible for it.
Last edited:
I ran into a related 4473/bound book issue a while back, take a look at this thread:
http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/116150-Random-run-in-the-with-ATF-(by-proxy)
Short version: pawn shop transferred me back my gun on a 4473 but didnt log it in their bound book. ATF audit showed a missing gun (mine). I was asked to bring the gun back to the shop so they could visually check the serial number, as the 4473 was apparently not enough to go on.
http://www.theoutdoorstrader.com/threads/116150-Random-run-in-the-with-ATF-(by-proxy)
Short version: pawn shop transferred me back my gun on a 4473 but didnt log it in their bound book. ATF audit showed a missing gun (mine). I was asked to bring the gun back to the shop so they could visually check the serial number, as the 4473 was apparently not enough to go on.
universal background to buy a gun,assemble,worship,redress the gov....no end and NO to checks on sales between individuals.
Exactly, And that's a fact jack.
I was going to get my cc permit a couple of weeks ago and I had an officer to tell me that was a bad idea, He said that gives them a database to know where to look for guns and if DHS wanted to have access to the records, there was nothing they could do, I don't remember his name but it sure was good info..
Then I ran across this article this morning about local police Forced to be against citizens. We The people will not give them any more help to track the guns down, Which all I have for the record is a slingshot anyway...
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/sheriffs-prepare-to-abandon-citizens-to-federal-gun-grab_022013
Last edited:
Universal background checks are the first step to registry. If you don't believe that, I think it is easy to understand that registry would be impossible without universal background checks. Another way to say it is that legal undocumented transfers are a sure way to block registry.
Universal BG checks = Registered Guns.
When you purchase a gun at a FFL you fill out a form. That form has all the information that would be in a gun registry. That form stays at the gun shop for 20 years. These forms can be looked at by the government whenever they want. If the shop closes, they send their bound book of forms to the ATF. It's not an easy to access database of names and guns, but it is a registry. Police do use it to trace guns. The only thing that really makes them effectively unregistered is the fact that those guns can be immediately transferred via private sale without documentation.
Lets say universal background checks are passed and there is no registry. If you want to do a private sale, you just get a BG check with no transfer form. Let's also assume that it works. The murder rate goes down a little bit and it's generally attributed to the checks. Unfortunately, as the OP stated, it's not perfect though. There's another high profile murder(s) and the country is outraged. The murderer purchased the weapon legally before he had a criminal record or mental illness identified. Since there is no registry, the gun wasn't taken away. What next?
Scenario A: The politicians agree that we have enough gun laws and chalk it up to the cost of freedom to bear arms.
Scenario B: The people consent to a gun registry. After all, it'll be automatic and electronic when the BG check is performed. Functionally, nothing will change for gun owners. The Universal BG checks worked but we just need a little more control...
~~~
It's not cliche, it's real and it's happening:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
"Please don't respond with NOTHING, or we don't need anything, because that is not going to help us at all."
That is the single most dangerous sentence in the whole debate. Sure there's plenty that can be done. None of it should affect law abiding citizens. You can enforce laws already in place. You can stiffen penalties for breaking those laws. Buying a gun with a criminal record is already illegal. Universal background checks might stop a small number of innocents from being killed. It will place the freedom of millions at risk. It's not worth it.
Jews in the Attic Test
GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA
Universal BG checks = Registered Guns.
When you purchase a gun at a FFL you fill out a form. That form has all the information that would be in a gun registry. That form stays at the gun shop for 20 years. These forms can be looked at by the government whenever they want. If the shop closes, they send their bound book of forms to the ATF. It's not an easy to access database of names and guns, but it is a registry. Police do use it to trace guns. The only thing that really makes them effectively unregistered is the fact that those guns can be immediately transferred via private sale without documentation.
Lets say universal background checks are passed and there is no registry. If you want to do a private sale, you just get a BG check with no transfer form. Let's also assume that it works. The murder rate goes down a little bit and it's generally attributed to the checks. Unfortunately, as the OP stated, it's not perfect though. There's another high profile murder(s) and the country is outraged. The murderer purchased the weapon legally before he had a criminal record or mental illness identified. Since there is no registry, the gun wasn't taken away. What next?
Scenario A: The politicians agree that we have enough gun laws and chalk it up to the cost of freedom to bear arms.
Scenario B: The people consent to a gun registry. After all, it'll be automatic and electronic when the BG check is performed. Functionally, nothing will change for gun owners. The Universal BG checks worked but we just need a little more control...
~~~
It's not cliche, it's real and it's happening:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
"Please don't respond with NOTHING, or we don't need anything, because that is not going to help us at all."
That is the single most dangerous sentence in the whole debate. Sure there's plenty that can be done. None of it should affect law abiding citizens. You can enforce laws already in place. You can stiffen penalties for breaking those laws. Buying a gun with a criminal record is already illegal. Universal background checks might stop a small number of innocents from being killed. It will place the freedom of millions at risk. It's not worth it.
Jews in the Attic Test
GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA
